Online platform for creating connections between two users as a function of opinions on issues.

ABSTRACT

A platform and a method for identifying the support for a single stances put forth by a source. In one non-limiting example, the stances can be a stance on a political issue from a candidate or a supporter of a candidate. The online platform creates connections between two users as a function of shared opinions on an issue and dissolves connections between two users when an opinion on that issue is not shared. The online networking platform determines a leader for a stances on an issue. The platform determines one or more supporters for that issue and links each supporter to the leader as a function of support for that particular issue. In a preferred non-limiting embodiment, a supporter may only select one leader for each issue, in this way ensuring that the supporter adopts the stances of the leader for that particular issue to maintain the connection.

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION

This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional PatentApplication No. 62/296,788, filed Feb. 18, 2016, the contents of whichare herein incorporated.

BACKGROUND THE INVENTION

An online network that allows for a connection to be formed between twousers in which one user has some ability that the other forming theconnection does not; the one who formed the connection has the abilityto terminate the connection. The online networking platform allows forthe creation of a connection between two or more users on each specificissue, one user acting as a leader and the second user as a supporter. Asupporter can only have one leader per issue because the supporter mustadopt the stances of that leader for that particular issue to maintainthe connection. The system tracks and connects one user to a leader.

Currently, social media is flooded with messages regarding stances onissues, particularly political issues. This is particularly true duringtimes of intense political debate such as during the two or more yearsleading up to an election cycle. In order to determine whether a personproposing a stance on an issue has a following, they must either createa web page and invite subscribers, or publish a blog with the ability tocomment. However, it is riot possible to ascertain the amount of supportany one single stances of the publisher has. The blog contains both proand con, as well as nuances of differences with the stances, even whensupporting the stances. Similarly, subscribers to a webpage, cannot becertified as being supporters of any one particular stances.

Accordingly, a system and method for aligning users in support of astances and monitoring the strength of that support for the leader orproposer of the stances is desired.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

This invention defines a platform and a method for identifying thesupport for a single stances put forth by a user. In one non-limitingexample, the stances can be a stance on a political issue from acandidate or a supporter of a candidate. The online platform of thecurrent invention creates connections between two users as a function ofshared opinions on an issue and dissolves connections between two userswhen an opinion on that issue is not shared. The online networkingplatform determines a leader for a stances on an issue. The platformdetermines one or more supporters for that issue and links eachsupporter to the leader as a function of support for that particularissue. In a preferred non-limiting embodiment, a supporter may onlyselect one leader for each issue, in this way ensuring that thesupporter adopts the stances of the leader for that particular issue tomaintain the connection.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The present disclosure is better understood reading the writtendescription with reference to the accompanying drawings in which thereference numerals denote the similar structures and refer to theelements throughout, in which:

FIGS. 1A, 1B are a flow chart for displaying the steps for creating asupport connection in accordance with the invention;

FIGS. 2A, 2B are a flow chart showing the process for changing a stanceafter a stance has obtained supporters for a user;

FIGS. 3A-3D is a representation of a sample network in accordance withthe invention showing the creation and the dissolution of connectionsover time for the exemplary issue of a carbon tax;

FIG. 4 is a flow chart showing confirmation of support in a stance inaccordance with the invention;

FIG. 5 is an operational diagram of a database profile in accordancewith the invention;

FIG. 6 is a screen shot of a webpage containing the political stances ofa user presented in accordance with the invention;

FIG. 7 is a screen shot of a webpage for editing a stance in accordancewith the invention;

FIG. 8 is a screen shot of a webpage enabling a user to break supportfor a stance and leader in accordance with the invention;

FIG. 9 is a screen shot of a webpage sent by the platform to a supporterof a change in stance by a leader on a stance being supported by theuser;

FIG. 10 is a screen shot of a webpage in which the platform enables auser to accept the stance change;

FIG. 11 is a screen shot of a webpage enabling the platform to providethe input for a user to support and adopt the stance based on therecommendation engine in accordance with the invention;

FIG. 12 is a screen shot of a webpage enabling the platform to change aleader association with a user as a function of a user profile andstances; and

FIGS. 13A and 13B are flowcharts for allocating influence values forstances taken on issues in accordance with the invention; and

FIG. 14 is a screen shot of a webpage enabling users to view the impactof their direct and indirect supporters on a user they have formed asupport with.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT

Reference is first made to FIG. 5 in which a flow chart for creating thedatabase for use in accordance with the invention is provided. A list ofpredefined political issues is stored either at a dedicated server or,in a cloud computing structure, as known in the art, as data; consideredas a singular data base. Allowable stances for issues are stored in thedatabase in a step 508. Each political issue is associated with one ormore predefined stances in a step 510, with respect to issues stored inthe data base as allowable stances defined in a step 508. In a preferrednon-limiting embodiment, an input by a system user is received by thedatabase as an input at a website as a stance 602 relative to a stance600 (see FIG. 6). By way of non-limiting example, if a political issuewere statehood for the District of Columbia, the predefined stance couldallow full statehood to the District of Columbia as a stance 602, orrefuse full statehood to the District of Columbia as an alternativestance. A third stance may be to grant full statehood but not fullrepresentation in Congress; and a fourth stance may be representation inCongress of some sort, but not full statehood. It should be noted thatwhile these example stances and justifications are shown as text at awebsite, either may also be in the form of a video, and audio file,pictures or the like.

With reference back to FIG. 5, a user 500 has the ability to create anissue in a step 510 by storing the details of an issue and a stance(step 508) along with the information associated with that issue as partof a user agenda in the database in a step 502. An agenda is acombination of stance and justification. Such associated information maybe the details of the stances, the political issue itself, thejustification of the issue, political influence points (weightednumerical values for the issue by supporter), and a person they support,i.e. to which they are linked across a distributed network, based uponthe commonality of their stance on an issue as determined by theplatform. These are all associated with a single political issue whichwas created in step 510 and presented as a stance 600.

As will be described below, each user may attract support for theirissue stance and/or support an issue stance of another as a first,second, third or beyond supporter within a hierarchy. The influencepoints of a leader are calculated by a leader's number of first, second,or third, etc. degree supporters. First degree supporters add a largerpercent share of their influence than third degree supporters forexample.

As seen in FIG. 14, the platform breaks the user supporters attributedto a leader into two categories; direct supporters 1400 or first degreesupporters and indirect supporters 1402 or second degree supporters andbeyond. These two groups have significantly different levels of impacton a per user basis on the leader's political influence. This is becausethere is a greater chance of a third degree supporter breaking theirsupport with a leader than a first degree supporter since there is anextra user layer in between (or middleman) deciding whether they wouldlike to accept or reject a stance change. Therefore a leader's abilityto influence that third degree supporter's stance is less than that of afirst degree supporter. As a result, as can be seen Sarah D has 3000total supporters, but only has an influence value 1218 of 2300 becauseshe does not receive the full value of each individual supporter for thereasons discussed above. However her impact value 1220 of 2300 has goneup 14%.

Users link to each other across a distributed network as a function ofsimilar stances on issues. These links are then stored and acted upon bythe platform. The platform determines that only a single stance isallowed for each political issue for each user registered with thesystem. This stance enables the user to take a stance in a step 506. Asseen in FIG. 7, the platform provides each of the stances 700 at awebsite page for selection by a user. The user's chosen stance 702 (seeFIG. 7) is taken from the list of allowable stances which becomes thedata stored in the database in step 508. The user may also add a writtenstatement, a justification 708, in a step 504, as part of the chosenstance 702 on the political issue stored or put forth in a step 510which is also contained within the political stance prompt 600 as seenin FIG. 6 and prompt 704 seen in FIG. 7.

The platform then creates connections between two respective individualusers as a function of chosen stances. As a function of the input fromthe user, a server creates a request to support from a user's politicalstance, as previously created in step 506, in a step 10 of FIG. 1A. Theserver, in a step 12, determines whether the user has previously added astance for this particular political issue to their profile as stored inthe database. If the server determines that no such stance has beenadded, then the issue and stance are added to the profile of the userand a support connection is created between other users having the samepolitical stance for that issue in a step 24.

FIG. 12 is a representative website 1200 for an individual user havingone or more distinct issues 703 for which that user associated with thatwebsite 1200 has taken a stance. At the webpage 1200, the issues 703 aretaxes on the rich, unemployment benefits, and illegal immigrantdetainment. Each issue 703 has an associated stance 702. By way ofexample, for the issue taxes on the rich 703, the current stance 702 ischange nothing, current tax rates for America's wealthiest citizens areappropriate. Each stance 702 may also have a justification 708 whichprovides a reasoning for the stance. A proposed newly adopted stance 705with a proposed justification 709 are also provided at website 1200

If it is determined that the political issue preexists in the profilemaking the support request, then in a step 14, the server determineswhether an existing support connection relating to this political issueexists for that user. If it is determined that a support connection forthe user exists already, then in a step 28, the user is prompted by thesystem at webpage 1200 to provide an input to support and adopt a stanceof this new leader breaking support with an existing leader relative tothe user. The server enables a user to only support a single proposer ofa stance at a single time.

An alert is provided to the user at webpage 1200 that by changing thesupport connection, they are changing their stances from a currentleader to a new leader on a political issue. A prompt 1210 regarding achange of support is provided at website 1200. A graphical userinterface support button 1212 enables a change in stance 705 in responseto alert 1210. Selection of this interface 1212 changes the support fromone leader to another. If the user does not wish to change the supportfor a particular leader on the issue, the support request ends in a step30 and no connection is formed. If the user approves the change ofsupport from a first leader to a second leader, then in a step 16, theserver determines whether the user is supporting themselves to prevent alooped connected chain.

To prevent creating false support, or overly weighted support, for anindividual leader, the system will not allow a user to supportthemselves. Reference is now made to FIG. 4 wherein a flow chart showingthe process for the system determining that a user is not supportingthemselves is provided. The support request is received in a step 400.In step 404 the server determines whether the leader about to receivesupport has a leader. If it is determined in step 404 that the selectedleader about to receive the support does not have a leader themselvesthen the support request is accepted in step 402 and the process isreturned to enable switching of the connection from the pre-existingleader to the newly requested leader as set forth in the method shown inFIGS. 1A,1B.

In step 404 if it is determined that the to be selected leader has aleader, in a step 406 the server determines whether the leader is theuser requesting to support the potentially new leading user. If theserver determines that the leader is the user sending the supportrequest, then the process ends and the switch of support is terminatedas the user is attempting to support themselves in a step 410. Thisprevents a leader from creating false, or overwhelming, support fortheir stances. If the leader being selected is not the user themselvesas determined in step 406, then it is again determined in a step 408whether the leader has a leader for the political issue. If the leaderhas a leader, the process for step 406 is restarted. If the leader doesnot have a leader as determined in step 408 then the process ends atstep 402 and the support request passes the process back to step 16 ofFIG. 1A.

The process returns to step 16 as the determination has now been madeutilizing the process of FIG. 4, in step 16, to confirm that the userwishes to break their association and support with one leader on astance in exchange for a second leader on a stance. If it is determinedin process 16 that there are paths between the requesting user and thenew leader, then the support request is ended, and the user which isbeing attempted to be selected is notified that you support them eitherdirectly or indirectly on this political issue in a step 34.

If in step 16, there are no previous paths between the user making therequest and the requested new leader, then in a step 20, the user adoptsthe political stance of the newly selected user (second user) and thejustification for the political issue and a support connection betweenthe first user and the second user, now the leader, is created in a step22. This is if there was no previous leader for the stance on the issue.

If there is a leader for that stance, then step 36, the currentconnection with the leader on this political issue is broken and in astep 38, the user adopts the agenda, i.e. the justification and stancefor an issue for the newly selected or requested user (leader) in a step38, and a support connection is created in a step 40. This is thescenario in which the user when prompted with the alert 12110 at website1200 in FIG. 12, the system receives an input of the break in thestance.

Reference is now made to FIGS. 2A, 2B in which the server enables andcarries through the effects for changing the stance for a user (leader)having supporters. Once a support connection is formed, the systemmonitors the maintenance of that connection as a function of changingdecisions by either one of the first and second users; i.e. leader orthe supporter.

These changes may be triggered by a change of stance or justification bythe leader. In a step 100, as seen as a screen shot shown in FIG. 8, aleader (Tim Robbins in this example) being supported by a second usermay change their support in response to an alert 802 of FIG. 8, that theleader has changed their stance. The server notifies a supporter at awebpage by providing the notice 802 that a leader associated with thatsupporter has changed their stance.

The server determines whether the change has been made within apredetermined time period, such as the past five days by way ofnon-limiting example, in a step 102. Limiting the decision in time,prevents alterations in a stance from occurring too rapidly forsupporters to make informed decisions regarding their support as thesystem enables the users to approve or disapprove each update. If it isdetermined in step 102 that the change was made in the predeterminedtime period, then the system in a step 106 does not send a stance changenotification to the supporter user. The new stance is placed in adatabase queue. The stance is to be released after the predeterminedtime period in a step 110.

The change in stance by the leader will be sent to supporters in theminimum of the desired time interval; five days in a nonlimitingexample. If the server releases the stance change from the queue, asdetermined in step 102 the server determines whether a stance changed onan issue is currently on the action board in step 108. If the change isreceived in step 102 then the server, in step 108 determines whether thestance has continued to change during that time interval, i.e. has notbeen returned to the original stance. If the stance change is maintainedand already exists, then the old stance, including a previous stancechange decision is overwritten in a step 112 and is stored in thedatabase.

If a stance change already exists, then the stance change decision isoverwritten in step 112. If no change is present, the stance change isposted in step 104.

The server notifies the supporting user with a prompt 906 (FIG. 9) at awebpage 904 for the user offering the user the options to accept thestance change or not in a step 114. If the input adoption of the newjustification at a graphical user interface (GUI) input 900 by extendingtheir support in a step 116, the connection is maintained in step 118.If the user (supporter) inputs a break of support in step 120 byutilizing GUI input 902 at webpage 904 of FIG. 9, the supporting usermay be prompted to take a new stance, support someone else, or keep theold stance that the leader previously had in a step 122. If thesupporting user decides to take a new stance or to support somebodyelse, the supporters of that user will be notified, in a step 124, thata new stance has been taken returning the process to step 100 for alldownstream supporters as indicated at alert 804. If the supporting userdecides to maintain the old stance and the supporting user hassupporters, the supporters are notified of the rejection of the stancechange and break of support in a step 126 and again the process isreturned to step 100 for the downstream supporters of the user.

It should be noted that the above example was given in terms of stance.However, it is readily understood that the support changes and alertscan be made as a function of changes in justification as well. This canhe true where there is no change in stance.

Reference is now made to FIGS. 3A-3D. These figures illustrateconnections between users within the network on a specific issue, thatof a carbon tax and the various stances. For simplicity of illustration,the stances are no carbon tax and a charge of $5 per ton. As can beseen, between FIGS. 3B and 3C, user A, the relative leader in thisillustration, has changed their stance on the issue to supporting nocarbon tax. User D did not change their position and therefore is nolonger connected to, nor a supporter of User A. User G is a supporter ofuser D as his user H. Each of these supporters has maintained theirstance to be consistent with user D. User D now becomes the leader withtwo supporters, and is no longer connected to user A. As seen from FIG.3C to FIG. 3D, user E changed their position to maintain itself as asupporter of user A. On the other hand, user F no longer supports user Cand therefore both user C and user A have lost the support of user F.

The support impact is the political influence of an individual supporterto a particular leader, the supporter is currently supporting. Thesystem uses an algorithm to calculate a leader's political influence notjust based on the number of supporters they may have, but the politicalinfluence of each supporter. More specifically, support impact is afunction of the percentage of the leader's influence a respective user'sconnection counts for. In a non-limiting example, if a leader has 100influence points on an issue, and a single user is contributing 50points, then that user's impact is 50 percent.

The transmission of influence value 1218 between users occurs on thecreation of a support connection described previously. Flow influencevalue 1218 is transmitted is described in FIGS. 13A, 13B. When a firstuser supports another user a connection is made in a step 2002, on aspecific political issue. The current influence value 1218 for thatfirst user creating the support connection on that specific issue ispulled from the database in a step 2004. Influence value 1218 is thenmultiplied by the multiplication variable in a step 2006, which, in onenon-limiting example, is a system wide default value. However it doesnot have to be system wide and can be calculated as a function ofvarious factors such as a leader's historical loyalty of its supporters,user activity, length of support for an issue, off-line supportactivities, etc. The resulting value is added to the leader's influencevalue for that specific issue, in a step 2008. The adjustment is thenfinished, in a step 2010. If the leader in the last scenario has aleader on this political issue, the process restarts for the upstreamleader to provide the upstream leader the full weight of the support onthe stance as the influence value of each individual supporter.

The process for removing a support connection is the same, except thevalue at step 2008 is not an addition but a subtraction.

In another non-limiting embodiment, the default multiplier variable isset to 70% due to lack of historical data. The algorithm may howevertake into account the individual historical loyalty of the user and theaverage turnover of a leader's supporters during a stance change.

A “Trickle Up” adjustment system shown in FIG. 13B details the updateprocess when there is a change of influence points for a currentsupporter occurs in a step 2014 and is a function of the addition of anew supporter or loss of a supporter. In this case the current supporterhas an increase or decrease in influence points for a particular issue.A check is run if this user has a leader, in a step 2016. If the userhas no leader and is the de facto leader, the process stops in a step2018.

If the user does have a leader, the original influence value for thatuser and that particular political agenda for the political issue isfound in a step 2020. This influence value 1218 is then multiplied by amultiplier variable in a step 2022. This resulting value is subtractedfrom the leader's political agenda for that political issue in a step2024. This brings the leader's influence value down to a level as ifthat user had never formed a support connection with the leader.

In the situation where an intermediate supporter has lost supporters,the influence of the supporters readjusted by subtracting out thesupporter value from the leader overall support as discussed above. Thenthe new value of the supporting user for that particular politicalagenda for the political issue is found in a step 2026. This is thenmultiplied by the multiplier variable, 2028. Then this value is added tothe leader's political agenda for that political issue in a step 2030.The process then checks if the leader that has just received theinfluence points update has a leader in a step 2032. If they do theprocess is restarted and the previous “leader” is now the supporterpassing up the effect of the influence change in a step 2034. If they donot have a leader the process ends.

This is significant because if a leader has many people supporting themon an issue, who a user chooses to support (if anybody) becomesimportant since that user will be sharing some of their points with theleader. The larger a single user's impact, the more sway that user mayhave when a leader is considering new stances or policy decisions.

The above description has been given in the environment of politicalstances and issues. However the system may also operate on aligned likesand dislikes such as agreeing on restaurants, movies, or the like toprovide support for chefs, restaurateurs, and movie critics orproducers. It can also work in other voting systems such as aligningvotes of common stock among certain shareholder factions to supportcertain changes in the governance of corporations, or the system may beused to align people among other viewpoints outside politics such asreligion and philosophy.

What is claimed is:
 1. A method for determining support for a stance onan issue comprising the steps of: a first user asserting a stance on anissue, storing the stance and an association between the stance and thefirst user to be accessible across a distributed network; at least oneof a second user and the third user asserting the stance; creating alink between the first user and at least one of the second user andthird user, as a function of asserting the stance, as a supporter of thefirst user; and storing the link between the first user and at least oneof the second user and third user to be accessible across thedistributed network.
 2. The method of claim 1 further comprising thestep of dissolving the respective link between the first user and atleast one of the second user and third user as function of a change inthe respective stance of at least one of the second user and third userwhere the stance on the issue is no longer shared between the first userand at least one of the second user and third.
 3. The method of claim 1,further comprising the step of: determining a leader for a stance on theissue, determining one or more supporters for that issue and linkingeach supporter to the leader as a function of the stance for the issue.4. The method of claim 1, wherein the first user changes the stance onthe issue, and each of the at least second user and third user receivesa prompt across the distributed network regarding the change.
 5. Themethod of claim 4 wherein the prompt is not sent across the distributednetwork for a predetermined time period following the change in stance.6. The method of claim 4, wherein the prompt includes an ability tomaintain the current stance by the second user and third user and changethe stance to the current stance of the first user by the second userand third user.
 7. The method of claim 6, wherein at least one of thesecond user and third user changes this stance associated with the atleast one of the second user and third user, and storing the stance tobe accessible across the distributed network.
 8. The method of claim 6,wherein at least one of the second user and third user maintains thecurrent stance associated with the at least one of the second user andthird user, and the link between the first user and the at least one ofthe second user and third user maintaining the current stance ischanged.
 9. The method of claim 8, wherein the link is changed from thefirst user to a fourth user as a function of a stance associated withthe fourth user and the current stance associated with the at least oneof the second user and third user maintaining the stance, and storingthe link between the fourth user and the at least one of the second userand third user to be accessible across a distributed network.
 10. Themethod of claim 9, further comprising the step of determining whetherthe fourth user is either one of the second user and third user, and notcreating the link between the fourth user and the at least one of thesecond user and third user, if it is determined that the fourth user iseither one of the second user and third user.
 11. The method of claim 1,further comprising the steps of: the first user asserting ajustification for the stance, storing the justification and anassociation between the justification and the first user to beaccessible across a distributed network; at least one of a second userand the third user having the justification for the stance; the linkbetween the first user and at least one of the second user and thirduser, also being function of asserting the justification.
 12. The methodof claim 11, further comprising the step of dissolving the respectivelink between the first user and at least one of the second user andthird user as function of a change in the respective justification of atleast one of the second user and third user where the justification onthe stance is no longer shared between the first user and at east one ofthe second user and third.
 13. The method of claim 1, further comprisingthe step of determining an influence value for each of the first user,second user and third user; the influence value of the first userincluding at least a portion of the influence value of the second userwhen there is a link between the first user and the second user, and theinfluence value of the first user including at least a portion of theinfluence value of the third user when there is a link between the firstuser and the third user.
 14. The method of claim 13, wherein the portionof the influence value is a function of at least one of historicalloyalty to the first user, the activity of the at least second user andthird user, the length of support for an issue by the second user andthird user.